[OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
fjmd1a at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 08:00:42 BST 2011
On 19 April 2011 01:27, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
Where? The only reference I see to "sublicense" is "You may not sublicense
> the Work."
See my earlier remarks. 4(b) permits the distribution (amongst other things)
of a Derivative Work under a licence (which might not be a CC licence) other
than the one under which the Work was licensed. i.e. Y licenses rather than
X (using our original terminology) which makes it a sublicence - though it
is not called that.
Y can't license a work to which Y doesn't own the copyright, unless Y has
> permission to sublicense the work. And CC-BY-SA specifically disallows
We can agree to disagree on this perhaps. I'm confident that I could
persuade a judge that a licence given by Y is binding on Y. As a general
rule though I may not give what I do not have, I may licence the use of that
which I do not have the power to licence and that licence, though not valid
against the real owner is valid against me. Its a feature of relativity of
title and/or estoppel. I don't know what your jurisdiction is, so it may be
you don't have those concepts there.
But its probably not worth the time arguing over it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk